Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Dead Insect in Gian Prakash S/O Shri Devi Ram vs Delhi Administration on 7 July, 2008Matching Fragments
389."
In Shakti Kumar Agrawala v. State of Orissa 1991 (XII) All India prevention of Food Adulteration Journal (AIPFAJ) 579 (Ori), it was observed as follows:
"8........Although, the report of the Public Analyst, Ext. 9 does not mention the actual date on which the sample was analysed in the laboratory, on a consideration of the aforesaid two rules, it has been taken that the sample of Suji was examined either on the date the Public Analyst's report was signed by him or one or two days prior to that date. Thus, there was delay of more than two months in the analysis of the sample Suji by the Public Analyst. According to the Public Analyst, the sample of Suji was adulterated because the same was infested having contained sight weevils and plenty of dead insects. In Ram Parkash v. The State of Punjab 1982 (1) FAC 10, and in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ramji Dass and another 1983 Cr LJ 1933, the delay in examination of sample of food articles has been deprecated and it has been further held that if at the time of taking sample there was no insect therein and there is possibility of the sample being insect infested at a later stage, then the accused is entitled to an acquittal keeping this principle of law in the background, 1st let me examine if for the delay of more than two months in the analysis of the sample of Suji by the Public Analyst, the petitioner is entitled to benefit. In this connection it is pertinent to note that P.W. 2 has admitted in his evidence that on 1031980 when he took the sample he did not notice any insect in the sample of Suji. It is common knowledge that insects like weevils are visible to the naked eye. Thus, the insect infestation found by the Public Analyst is a subsequent development and the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the same. In any case, when there was no insect in the Suji in question on the date the sample was taken the charge against the petitioner has to fail."
In A.P. Goel and another v. The State (Delhi Admn.) 2001 (1) FAC 168 (Del), relied on behalf of the appellant, it was observed as follows :
"4. On the basis of the complaint before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, it was found that the sample, which was sent to the CFL was found to contain both living and dead insects. The argument, therefore, that found favour with the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was that the sample was not properly sealed so as to prevent moisture from entering into the bottle thereby causing the deterioration of the sample. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate relied upon the judgment of this Court in M.C.D. v. Ved Parkash1984 II FAC 304. The facts of' the case decided by the High Court were more or less para materia to the case in hand. This Court had held that once living insects are found in the sample sent to the laboratory after five months, it can safely be inferred that the sample was placed in a bottle, which was not in light and sealed. In the present case, the CFL examined the sample after a period of 10 months and found substantial amount of living and dead insects thereby giving rise to the inference, that the sample was not preserved correctly or properly sealed."
7. The Director Central Food Laboratory recorded that there were three live insects and seven dead insects along with 11 dead insects larva. Again, there is nothing in the report of the Director that these insects were detected after microscopic examination. In so far as the standard of alcoholic acidity was concerned, the Director has very specifically mentioned in his report that this alcoholic acidity was subject to increase from the date of drawl of sample and its ultimate analysis in the laboratory, meaning thereby, that increase, if any, in alcoholic acidity could be attributed to the lapse of time which took place between taking of the sample and the analysis by the Director. This aspect of the opinion appears to be correct one, inasmuch as on 23rd day of June, 1981, when the Public Analyst analysed the sample, the alcoholic acidity was found to be 0.08% within the prescribed limit and the Director analysed the sample on 24th of October, 1981, say after a period of about five months after the taking of the sample and the likelihood of alcoholic acidity having been increased on the basis of the opinion given by the Director himself could not be ruled out."
It was also held that on the basis of the aforesaid circumstances, the likelihood of insects having been cropped up during the transit period also could not be ruled out, especially when it has been noticed in the two reports referred to above that the earlier report contained less insects, while the later report contained more dead and living insects, which could also lead to this inference that by the passage of time, these insects dead or alive have been cropped up in the sample and in this background , the possibility of sample being insect free at the time of taking sample cannot be ruled out.